| Revision as of 18:39, 28 February 2014 editJohn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers215,495 edits →Pop over when you get a chance: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:52, 1 March 2014 edit undoJohn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers215,495 edits →Australian sport naming rules: pleaseNext edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| ::: John, threats like that aren't at all helpful. We currently have an uneasy truce on the more generic sport in Australia articles, what soccer fans do in their specific articles should not be as strictly policed. ] (]) 09:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC) | ::: John, threats like that aren't at all helpful. We currently have an uneasy truce on the more generic sport in Australia articles, what soccer fans do in their specific articles should not be as strictly policed. ] (]) 09:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::: Their is no consensus. I would suggest instead of threatening blocks on long-term editors, you should actually try and do something about the ingrained, meatpuppeted bias of a handful of editors who have created a false consensus in regards to the name of a sport they don't even like, shoving down their incorrect viewpoint so that three major sports in Australia can use their official names, while the fourth is forced to use a no longer relevant nickname, even on articles ''specifically and exclusively about players or teams or organisations dedicated to the sport of football'', that use the official name for the sport yet are somehow forced to call that sport by a different name for no reason other than it offends a handful of editors from one state in Australia. ] (]) 10:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC) | :::: Their is no consensus. I would suggest instead of threatening blocks on long-term editors, you should actually try and do something about the ingrained, meatpuppeted bias of a handful of editors who have created a false consensus in regards to the name of a sport they don't even like, shoving down their incorrect viewpoint so that three major sports in Australia can use their official names, while the fourth is forced to use a no longer relevant nickname, even on articles ''specifically and exclusively about players or teams or organisations dedicated to the sport of football'', that use the official name for the sport yet are somehow forced to call that sport by a different name for no reason other than it offends a handful of editors from one state in Australia. ] (]) 10:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::::HiLo has asked me to remind you that this personalisation of the dispute is unhelpful. I have told him that if you continue like this you should have to face a sanction. I am extremely keen to avoid this course of events. Instead, please post your understanding of the consensus at my talk page so that we can move towards a solution. Thank you. --] (]) 00:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Pop over when you get a chance == | == Pop over when you get a chance == | ||
Revision as of 00:52, 1 March 2014
 Archives |
Sydney Derby
Hi Mack, Regarding the sources you are adding to this article, I have no doubt that the derby is genuine, a derby exists between any two teams that are geographically close, that doesn't mean there should be an article on it. The problem with this article is that sources do not discuss the derby itself. The one you added most recently, mentions the word derby in the headline, but the article is just a match report between the two sides. There is no discussion of any form of rivalry between the two sides. What is being done in this article and the other australian team ones, is editors are taking match reports and other sources and synthesising a rivalry out of this. For the derby / rivalry to pass GNG, there needs to be significant coverage of the rivalry itself. Sources like this, relating to the Old Firm are what is required, sources that actually discuss the rivalry. Fenix down (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- I understand what your reasoning is Fenix down, I simply believe that it is notable albeit without massive years of history, as well as feeling that the short time an AFD is in place isn't enough time to improve the article to what your standards might be to make it 'acceptable'. However, if you must continue down the road of article deletions, you should take a look at Sydney Derby AFL, which is an identical situation for a different sport, but one that has even less notability. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is, whether you believe it to be notable or not, you must provide sources discussing the rivalry itself. The fact that the derby is so short-lived at the moment means that there isn't really going to be much out there on the rivalry itself. I would agree the AFL "derby" also is a GNG failur by definition. I am however, happy to withdraw my opinion (though with other editors initially seeming to agree I don't think I can withdraw the nom) if you are able to provide significant reliable coverage of this rivalry, as opposed to a synthesis of match reports, on bot hthis and any other current AfD. However, as at least one editor has commented, these "rivalries" are to me simply new local derbies that are being hyped by the league and there respective owners. If you strip aways the hype there is little left. However, I would have no issue with recreation in time. Fenix down (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Fenix down (I presume this should notify you): There has been some work done to the article that includes several new sources that should address your basic concerns, or at least prove that the article is viable and does document a 'notable' rivalry, in particular the seeseeeye interview with Sebastian Hassett. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- It suggests there is a nascent rivalry, though the article is really about a wider city rivalry of which the football element is at the moment only a small part, so I'm not really sure how much it helps - particularly as the gist of article is about how the rivalry is small but growing. Firstly, you will need more than one interview to meet GNG, and surmount the elephant in the room which is how a rivalry can really develop when they have only played three times.
- Also, I don't think the article has materially changed much, it is still heavily reliant on a synthesis from other sources. The "Origin" section really does little more than set the scene making the claim that the rivalry fits into a wider rivalry and doesn't actually say anything at all about a rivalry other than two small groups of supporters chanting at each other once, which happens at every game all around the world.
- The "A-League" section is also very weak, the first paragraph, the longest section in the article deals with comments made after the first game, some of which are talking about hopes for the future which do not establish there is a rivalry now. Only Culina's comments address the present, and as a player involved at one of the clubs, having an inherent interest to hype the match he is not a reliable source.
- The second paragraph in this section deals with one of the three games, but again doesn't mention anything, or any source to do with rivalry, it is merely 2 logical fallacies, firstly that because a game sold out there must be a rivalry (I have removed this as the source makes no reference to rivalry that I could see at all, so it is disengenuous. Secondly that because there was a bit of bad blood between the players there is therefore a rivalry (I have removed this as well for the same resons). Fenix down (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Fenix down (I presume this should notify you): There has been some work done to the article that includes several new sources that should address your basic concerns, or at least prove that the article is viable and does document a 'notable' rivalry, in particular the seeseeeye interview with Sebastian Hassett. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is, whether you believe it to be notable or not, you must provide sources discussing the rivalry itself. The fact that the derby is so short-lived at the moment means that there isn't really going to be much out there on the rivalry itself. I would agree the AFL "derby" also is a GNG failur by definition. I am however, happy to withdraw my opinion (though with other editors initially seeming to agree I don't think I can withdraw the nom) if you are able to provide significant reliable coverage of this rivalry, as opposed to a synthesis of match reports, on bot hthis and any other current AfD. However, as at least one editor has commented, these "rivalries" are to me simply new local derbies that are being hyped by the league and there respective owners. If you strip aways the hype there is little left. However, I would have no issue with recreation in time. Fenix down (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Half Barnstar | |
| Awarded by Vjmlhds for being part of the cumulative effort to rescue WWE Raw 1000 from deletion Vjmlhds (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC) |
Australian sport naming rules
Hi. I noticed this. Could you please not make any more edits like that? Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Those rules are invalid, and forced on football articles via a false, meatpuppeted consensus. The sport this teams plays is football. It is the name of the club, the name of the sport, and the name of the official organisations that run the sport worldwide, in asia, in Australia & in New South Wales. The sport is football and will always be that. Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for being clear and honest in your reply to me. I shall try to do the same. If you are unhappy with the consensus reached, I can advise you on ways that you can legitimately try to change it. In the meantime, if I see you making any more edits like that which go against the consensus I shall block you to prevent disruption to the project. I would very much hope not to have to do this. --John (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- John, threats like that aren't at all helpful. We currently have an uneasy truce on the more generic sport in Australia articles, what soccer fans do in their specific articles should not be as strictly policed. The-Pope (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Their is no consensus. I would suggest instead of threatening blocks on long-term editors, you should actually try and do something about the ingrained, meatpuppeted bias of a handful of editors who have created a false consensus in regards to the name of a sport they don't even like, shoving down their incorrect viewpoint so that three major sports in Australia can use their official names, while the fourth is forced to use a no longer relevant nickname, even on articles specifically and exclusively about players or teams or organisations dedicated to the sport of football, that use the official name for the sport yet are somehow forced to call that sport by a different name for no reason other than it offends a handful of editors from one state in Australia. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- HiLo has asked me to remind you that this personalisation of the dispute is unhelpful. I have told him that if you continue like this you should have to face a sanction. I am extremely keen to avoid this course of events. Instead, please post your understanding of the consensus at my talk page so that we can move towards a solution. Thank you. --John (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Their is no consensus. I would suggest instead of threatening blocks on long-term editors, you should actually try and do something about the ingrained, meatpuppeted bias of a handful of editors who have created a false consensus in regards to the name of a sport they don't even like, shoving down their incorrect viewpoint so that three major sports in Australia can use their official names, while the fourth is forced to use a no longer relevant nickname, even on articles specifically and exclusively about players or teams or organisations dedicated to the sport of football, that use the official name for the sport yet are somehow forced to call that sport by a different name for no reason other than it offends a handful of editors from one state in Australia. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- John, threats like that aren't at all helpful. We currently have an uneasy truce on the more generic sport in Australia articles, what soccer fans do in their specific articles should not be as strictly policed. The-Pope (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for being clear and honest in your reply to me. I shall try to do the same. If you are unhappy with the consensus reached, I can advise you on ways that you can legitimately try to change it. In the meantime, if I see you making any more edits like that which go against the consensus I shall block you to prevent disruption to the project. I would very much hope not to have to do this. --John (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Pop over when you get a chance
Hi. Could you look in at User talk:John#Next step; clarification when you have a chance? Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)